Trump Issues Executive Order on WOTUS

Today President Donald Trump issued an executive action ordering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers to reconsider their controversial Waters of the United States Rule.

The WOTUS rule, which was issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers under the Obama Administration, was challenged in courts by more than 30 states, environmental organizations, and numerous industry groups including the National Corn Growers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. . In October 2015, a federal appeals court issued a stay preventing the rule’s implementation.

The National Corn Growers Association said, “We appreciate the Trump Administration’s commitment to reducing regulatory burdens for America’s farmers and ranchers,” said NCGA President Wesley Spurlock. “We fully support the repeal of the WOTUS rule. Farmers and ranchers care deeply about clean water, but this rule had significant flaws. It was arbitrarily written, legally indefensible, and extremely difficult to implement.”

Craig Uden, president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) today said, “This extremely flawed rule would force ranchers and feedlot operators to get permits or risk excessive federal penalties despite being miles away from any navigable water. It would be one of the largest federal land grabs and private-property infringements in American history, and the President should be applauded for making EPA and the Corps reconsider this debacle. Ultimately, this rule should be taken out behind the barn and put out of its misery.”

U.S. Senator Steve Daines (R) Montana, released a statement on the overreaching WOTUS rule seeks to regulate virtually every ditch and pond that may be occasionally wet across the United States and would have a significant negative impact on farmers, ranchers, and landowners across the country. Daines said, “We can protect Montana’s pristine water without harming our agriculture economy and violating Montanans’ private property rights,” Daines stated. “I’m thrilled President Trump has heeded my call to halt this disastrous Obama-era policy and that we are allowing Montanans to manage the land they know best.”

Source: Northern Ag Network

Supreme Court Upholds Landowner Rights in WOTUS

Source: Beef Magazine

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a pivotal decision in the ongoing and protracted efforts by cattle producers and other landowners to protect themselves from the EPA, Army Corps of Engineers and the controversial Waters of the United States (WOTUS) regulations.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., set a precedent that landowners may challenge the Corps’ jurisdictional determination specifying that a piece of property contains a “water of the United States.” The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association filed an amicus brief in support of Hawkes. NCBA President Tracy Brunner said this is a major victory for landowners across the country.

“This case highlights the issues landowners and land-use stakeholders have with the Clean Water Act,” said Brunner. “Neither of the options provided to landowners are realistic under the current regulatory environment. Applying for a 404 permit is expensive, exhaustive and time consuming. Gambling on EPA enforcement and risking civil and criminal penalties is foolish. This case strikes a balance that at least gives us some measure of regulatory certainty in the notoriously unclear Clean Water Act.”

The Hawkes case involved three companies engaged in mining peat in Minnesota. Due to the difficulty inherent in determining the need for a 404 Dredge and Fill Permit, the Army Corps allows property owners to obtain a standalone jurisdictional determination if a particular piece of property contains a WOTUS and therefore requires a 404 permit before using the land.

Upon receiving an approved jurisdictional determination that their land did contain a WOTUS, the companies exhausted the administrative remedies available and then filed suit in Federal District Court challenging the Corps’ jurisdictional determination. The government argued that such a jurisdictional determination was not final agency action and that landowners would have to either discharge without a permit and then challenge EPA enforcement or apply for a permit and challenge the outcome.

“Given the subjective nature of a determination and the inconsistent application of the Clean Water Act, knowing what is or is not a WOTUS was ripe for challenge,” said Brunner. “The ability to challenge a determination before going through the time-consuming and costly permitting process, or gambling on EPA enforcement, provides a measure of fairness to landowners.”

In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy expressed the Court’s continued concern with the Clean Water Act, “[t]he Act… continues to raise troubling questions regarding the Government’s power to cast doubt on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the Nation.” NCBA is committed to continuing its WOTUS lawsuit on behalf of its members.

According to the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), now, when the Corps asserts jurisdiction over low spots that look more like land than water, it will have to do so with the knowledge that its jurisdictional determination can be tested in court.

“Today’s decision removes a huge roadblock that has prevented landowners from obtaining relief from the courts when the Corps illegally claims their land is federally regulated water,” AFBF President Zippy Duvall said. “Now, farmers and ranchers can have their day in court when the government tells them they cannot plow a field or improve a ditch without a federal permit.”

Senate Hearing Reviews Army Corps’ Role in WOTUS

waterWASHINGTON (Sept. 30, 2015) – Today the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water held a hearing on the Army Corps of Engineers’ participation in the “waters of the United States” regulation. The subcommittee focused on internal memos released by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. While the memos show the Corps leadership having serious concerns with the science underlying the WOTUS rule, Jo Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army insisted, as co-author, the Corps supported the final rule.

The hearing provided ample opportunity to highlight the issues raised in the memos and the gulf between the Corps and EPA in the arbitrary standards used in the final rule. Philip Ellis, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association president and Chugwater, Wyo., cattleman, said the arbitrary nature of this rule poses a danger to all land uses.

“This rule is clearly not based on science, nor does it relate to keeping our waters clean,” said Ellis. “It is a transparent land grab by the administration and EPA. Cattlemen and women will continue to oppose this rule in Congress and in the courtroom. This rule and the flawed rulemaking process underlie the need for legislation to withdraw the rule and compel the agencies to work with all stakeholders.”

The WOTUS rule became effective in all but 13 states on August 28. A Federal Circuit Judge in North Dakota granted a temporary preliminary injunction on implementation of the WOTUS rule in the case brought by the 13 states before his court. Since enforcement of the rule, 31 states and numerous stakeholders, including the NCBA and Public Lands Council, have engaged in 22 lawsuits challenging EPA’s transparent lack of authority to regulate all waters in the United States.

NCBA and PLC support S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, bipartisan legislation that would direct the EPA to withdraw the final WOTUS rule and work with stakeholders in drafting a new rule to clarify the Clean Water Act.

–NCBA Press Release

EPA Releases Waters of the U.S. Rule

waterThe Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) Rule was finalized by EPA and Army Corps on May 27, 2015.  MSGA is currently reviewing the rule, but initially, it appears few changes have been made from the proposed rule. In a number of cases, the rule represents an expansion of federal jurisdiction beyond current practices and the limitations affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The agencies received over 1 million comments on the WOTUS proposal before they closed the second comment period on November 14, 2014. MSGA, working with NCBA, also viewed the new rule as a:

  • Increase in jurisdiction over ephemeral streams
  • New expansive jurisdiction over adjacent waters
  • Many ditches subject to federal regulation

MSGA provided extensive comments in opposition to the proposed rule, including:

  1. Removal of intermittent and ephemeral non-navigable streams from the rule.
  2. Remove the inclusion of ditches in the definition of tributary.
  3. Remove the provision that would make isolated wetlands, ponds and other open waters per se jurisdictional if they are located within a riparian area or floodplain.
  4. Withdraw the Interpretive Rule that limits the Sec. 404 “normal farming, silviculture and ranching” exemption to 56 NRCS practices, which limits landowner protections.

The Agencies have estimated the rule will cost as much as $306 million annually. MSGA is currently working with others to consider possible avenues to rewrite or halt implementation of the rule. Due to the concern over the rule, there are currently two bills in Congress to halt the proposed WOTUS Rule.

The first is the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act (H.R. 1732). This bill calls for the EPA to withdraw their rule and has passed the full House by a bi-partisan vote of 261-155.

In Senate, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act (S. 1140) was introduced to Environment and Public Works Committee. This bill would also require the EPA and Army Corps to withdraw the WOTUS proposal and develop a new proposal that would reach consensus with state and local governments on defining “Waters of the United States.” Senator Steve Daines is cosponsor of S. 1140 legislation.

Grazing Districts Hold Annual Meeting, Podcast with Public Lands Council

masgdThe Montana Association of State Grazing Districts (MASGD) held their annual meeting on June 17th at Fort Keogh in Miles City. The meeting started with a joint Board of Directors meeting with the MASGD and the PLC, followed by a Grazing District Secretary appreciation lunch.

During the lunch, the Board recognized the secretaries for their valuable service to the districts. The Board also had a special recognition to Jennifer Cole, who is now retired, but was instrumental in the formation of the Missouri River Basin Grazing District in Alzada.

For the general business meeting, there were over thirty-five members in attendance. Informational updates were provided by Dustin Van Liew, Executive Director for the National Public Lands Council; Mark Petersen, Research Leader for Fort Keogh; Lila Taylor, Board of Livestock; Fred Wacker for MSGA, Richard Stuker, MT Fish and Wildlife Commission and Floyd Thompson, and Todd Yeager from the Bureau of Land Management.

The Grazing District members also received congressional updates from Jesse Anderson with Senator Tester’s office and Alex Sterhan with Congressman Zinke. Larry Ahlgren of Winnett and Dan Kluck of Malta were elected for a second term on the Board of Directors.

The 2016 annual meeting is tentatively scheduled for June in Malta, MT.

After the Grazing Districts meeting, we had the opportunity to sit down with Dustin Van Liew to learn more about the work Public Lands Council does in Washington D.C. as well as here in Montana.

Montana and 12 Other States Challenge New EPA & Corps of Engineers Regulation

Montana water ranching updatesOn Monday (June 29), Montana Attorney General Tim Fox and 12 other states filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) over the new regulation broadly expanding the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act. The case was filed in the U.S. district court for the District of North Dakota.

In their complaint, the states contend the new definition of “Waters of the U.S.” violates provisions of the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the United States Constitution.

“Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have rejected the very regulatory expansion that the EPA and Corps of Engineers are implementing through this new rule,” Attorney General Fox said. “This is yet another example of a federal agency acting by decree to bypass Congress and violate rights of states reserved under the law and the U.S. Constitution.”

The states assert that the EPA’s and Corps’ new rule wrongly broadens federal authority by placing a majority of water and land resource management in the hands of the federal government. Congress and the courts have repeatedly affirmed that the states have primary responsibility for the protection of intrastate waters and land management. The states argue that the burdens created by these new regulations on waters and lands are harmful and will negatively affect farmers, ranchers, and landowners. As a result, landowners will have to seek additional federal permits or face substantial fines and federal criminal enforcement actions.

“Clean water is important to all of us, and we Montanans know how to protect our waters,” Fox said. “Through our state Constitution, the 1971 Water Quality Control Act, and other legislation, we have established strong water protections tailored to the unique needs of our communities. These new federal regulations add a complicated and unnecessary layer of rules.”

The states are asking the court to vacate the rule and enjoin the EPA and Corps from enforcing the new, significantly expanded definition of “Waters of the U.S.”

Senator Brad Hamlett (D-Cascade), chairman of the legislature’s Water Policy Interim Committee, spoke in support of the lawsuit. “Montana’s Constitution states that all of the water that falls and flows within the boundaries of Montana belongs to the state for the beneficial use of its citizens,” Sen. Hamlett said. “Now we have two federal executive branch agencies, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, attempting to assert control over Montana state waters by rule. This is, in my opinion, unconstitutional, a deliberate interference with our state’s most valuable resource, and must be stopped dead in its tracks. This is not about clean water, it is about jurisdiction, as Montana being a headwaters state cherishes and protects its waters and knowing the lay of the land and our waters best we definitely, constitutionally, and practically need to remain in control.”

Montana’s local governments and agricultural community also expressed their support of Attorney General Fox’s decision to challenge the new federal regulations.

“The Montana Association of Counties is pleased that Attorney General Fox is joining other states in challenging these new regulations,” said Harold Blattie, executive director of the Montana Association of Counties. “The EPA and Corps failed to consider concerns expressed by over 40 Montana counties about placing an undue burden on their ability to perform routine road maintenance. The final regulation lacks the clarity for counties to even be able to tell which roadside ditches are now under the EPA’s and Corps’ jurisdiction and which are not.”

“In our initial review of the finalized Waters of the U.S. regulation, it represents a significant expansion of federal jurisdiction beyond current practices and the limitations affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Errol Rice, Executive Vice President of the Montana Stockgrowers Association. “The final regulation ignores state and local efforts to protect these waters and will have major implications for all Montanans. As ranchers who already have practices in place to promote water quality, we see the final regulation as problematic to implement and causing more harm and confusion rather than clarifying the law.”

“Farmers and ranchers are still very concerned with the EPA’s new regulation,” said Nicole Rolf of the Montana Farm Bureau Federation. “It takes power away from state and local governments, while at the same time burdening farmers and ranchers with unnecessary and ridiculous rules. We very much appreciate that Attorney General Tim Fox recognizes these problems and is willing to defend Montanans who make their living raising food.”

The Montana Chamber of Commerce, Montana Building Industry Association, Montana Contractors Association, and the Montana Association of Realtors are also in support of the legal challenge.

Joining Montana in the suit are the states of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

–Press Release, Attorney General Tim Fox


WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Monday, Senator Steve Daines released the following statement on Montana Attorney General Tim Fox and 12 other states’ lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) over the new regulation broadly expanding the definition of the Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS).

“I applaud Attorney General Tim Fox for standing up for Montana farmers, ranchers and small businesses against another egregious power grab by the Obama administration. This rule has the capability to cripple Montana agriculture and natural resources, hurt Montana jobs and threaten Montanans’ property rights.  As this lawsuit moves through the judicial system, I will continue to fight tirelessly against the EPA’s overreach to protect Montana jobs, agriculture and natural resources.”

Daines is a cosponsor of S. 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act that would direct the EPA and Corps to issue a revised WOTUS rule that protects traditional navigable water from water pollution, while also protecting farmers, ranchers and private landowners.

The full text of S.1140 is available here.

EPA’s Waters of the U.S. Changes Impacts Ranchers and Water Quality

4 orgs logos

On Friday November 14th, the Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA), Montana Association of State Grazing Districts (MASGD), Montana CattleWomen (MCW) and the Montana Public Lands Council (MPLC), submitted comments to EPA regarding the Proposed Rule regarding the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act .

Montana has long been known as an agricultural state. Farming and Ranching contribute billions to the state’s economy as Montana’s largest business sector. In fact, there are 2.5 cattle for every Montana resident. Over 28,000 farms and ranches are in Montana today, each working every day to conserve and sustain the environment we all call home.

One of the most pressing issues for our members in 2014 has been proposed changes to the Clean Water Act from the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA wants to broaden their definition of “Waters of the U.S.” which would increase their jurisdiction to regulate, not only more water, but also potentially, much of the land surrounding those waterways.

Ranchers rely on clean water for their crops and livestock and are often at the front line of maintaining and improving water quality to sustain and conserve our environment. Irrigation plays a critical role in farming and ranching in Montana, whether it is for growing forages or crops. EPA’s proposed rule could change the agency’s jurisdiction when it comes to regulating both land and water that Montana farmers and ranchers depend on for a living.

As organizations representing farmers and ranchers, who have cared for the land for many generations, we believe our members do a great job of conserving and sustaining a clean water supply, not only for their land, but also for everyone downstream, including water supplies for many wildlife and Montana communities.

Due to the complexity of the issue, there has been a large degree of confusion and uncertainty from the people directly affected by this proposed rule change. In our comments, we requested EPA to drop the proposed rule changes to the Clean Water Act. If the proposed rule cannot be dropped, we provided specific concerns and recommendations for EPA to address.

Our comments included the following:

  1. Remove the expansion of the Clean Water Act to intermittent and ephemeral non-navigable streams, which are defined as tributaries and per se jurisdictional under the proposed rule.
  2. Remove the inclusion of ditches in the definition of tributary.
  3. Remove the provision that would make isolated wetlands, ponds and other open waters per se jurisdictional if they are located within a riparian area or floodplain.
  4. The exclusions and exemptions provided under the proposed rule are unclear and too narrow to provide protections for landowners. Clarification is needed prior to moving forward with a rule.
  5. Due to inadequate input from landowners, we request the agency to immediately withdraw the Interpretive Rule that limits the Sec. 404 “normal farming, silviculture and ranching” exemption to 56 NRCS practices.
  6. The proposed rule usurps states’ rights to manage waters and land use activity. This proposed rule is an overreach that makes all waters federal, violating the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and the plain language of the Clean Water Act.
  7. Due to the proposed rule ambiguities and uncertainty, we request the agencies withdraw the rule.
  8. We would encourage the agencies to engage in meaningful discussions with the states to better define the areas, if there are any, that states feel are deficient in meeting water quality standards.

Montana’s water laws are very comprehensive, do a good job of regulating the quantity of water used by agriculture, and ensure that water quality remains a priority when it comes to impacts on our environment, wildlife and surrounding communities.

The EPA’s proposed actions on this rule making process are a strong reminder to ranchers and members of the agriculture community of the need to remain actively involved in the policymaking processes, working to keep state and federal agencies aware of the continual improvements taking place, so that we may continue being good stewards of our environment and resources.

Montana Stockgrowers Association encourages, you as members, to remain active in your communities, and be engaged in conversations surrounding these critical issues that affect our ability to produce food, fiber and fuel products for Montanans and a growing global population.  As this rule making process moves forward, MSGA will provide any updates as they become available.  We would also like to thank the members who provided additional comments on this very important issue.For further questions, please contact Jay Bodner at the MSGA office at (406) 442-3420. A complete copy of the comments submitted can be viewed by visiting http://bit.ly/WOTUScomments.

EPA Hands Over Maps Detailing the Extent of their WOTUS Proposal

EPA WOTUS Montana Expansion MapWASHINGTON (Aug. 27, 2014) –The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology released maps today of waters and wetlands the Environmental Protection Agency has to-date refrained from making public. After multiple requests, the Agency finally handed over the maps to the committee, which appear to detail the extent of the “Waters of the United States” proposal.

“Given the astonishing picture they paint, I understand the EPA’s desire to minimize the importance of these maps,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Science Committee, in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “But EPA’s posturing cannot explain away the alarming content of these documents. While you claim that EPA has not yet used these maps to regulate Americans, you provided no explanation for why the Agency used taxpayer resources to have these materials created.”

Knowledge of the maps came as the Committee was doing research in preparation for a hearing regarding the proposed “Waters of the United States” rule. The maps were kept hidden while the Agencies marched forward with rulemaking that fundamentally re-defines private property rights, said Chairman Smith.

“It is deplorable that EPA, which claims to be providing transparency in rulemakings, would intentionally keep from the American public, a taxpayer-funded visual representation of the reach of their proposed rule,” said Ashley McDonald, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association environmental counsel. “Unfortunately, it is just another blatant contradiction to the claims of transparency this Administration insists they maintain.”

These maps are very similar to the maps produced by NCBA and other agricultural groups, which also showcase the EPA’s extensive attempt to control land across the country. These maps show individual states facing upwards of 100,000 additional stream miles that could be regulated under the proposed regulation.

“This is the smoking gun for agriculture,” said McDonald. “These maps show that EPA knew exactly what they were doing and knew exactly how expansive their proposal was before they published it.”

The maps are available on the House Committee website here. The Montana map is available by clicking here (maps are large files and may take a few seconds to load).

Related Articles:

EPA changes to Waters of U.S., Beef Sustainability and Checkoff Increases | Podcast

solar filled water tankOn today’s post we follow up with a podcast from the recent summer cattle industry conference held in Denver, Colorado. A broad range of issues were discussed at the meeting, but the subject drawing the most conversation was EPA‘s proposed changes to the Waters of the U.S. rule. We provided a preliminary analysis of the proposed rule changes in an earlier blog post. Click here to read more.

Ariel Overstreet-Adkins, who has been working on comments for the issue on behalf of MSGA, attended the meeting and shared a few comments. “Some of the major concerns the panelists brought up are some of the same concerns we’ve had while looking at this proposal. These include the broad definition of tributary, the change of definition of adjacent to include all waters and not just wetlands, and a really undefined catch all of other waters. Across the board, this rule seems to increase uncertainty, even though the EPA says they’re trying to make things more certain. We believe this is going to be costly for many industries across the U.S. and not just agriculture.”

The Property Rights and Environmental Management committee members also passed a resolution to lead the development of a beef sustainability program, inclusive of the beef value chain and stakeholders, which addresses the continued advancement in areas such as economic viability, production efficiencies, animal care and handling, environmental conservation, human resources and community support. MSGA believes this is a positive move for the industry to establish and verify sustainable practices most ranchers already utilize.

The Cattlemen’s Beef Board and Committees concerning the Beef Checkoff also held meetings while in Denver. One of the highlights of those meetings comes from a working group looking at the proposed Checkoff increase to $2 per head. Several industry groups are working together on a proposal for changes.

Listen to the podcast below for more on these topics. This is just the second portion of our podcast covering the recent summer industry meetings in Denver. Stay tuned for our next podcast where we’ll talk about important policy issues discussed during the meetings, including cattle health issues including disease concerns surround the import of foreign beef and changes to the FDA’s antibiotic labeling rules. We’ll also find out more about CattleFax’s outlook for the cattle industry.

Preliminary analysis of EPA/Corp’s Waters of the U.S. Proposed Rule

environmental protection agency epa logoAriel Overstreet-Adkins, MSGA legal/policy intern, has been working this summer to evaluate the EPA WOTUS rule changes. To learn more, contact the MSGA office, (406) 442-3420. To submit comments, visit www2.epa.gov/uswaters before October 20, 2014.

MSGA is currently undertaking a comprehensive legal analysis of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposed change regarding the definition of Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). We hope to have our comments drafted by the end of August  to provide members with guidance about submitting your own comments, which are due by October 20. The proposed language itself is only about a page and a half in length. [View our online newsletter to read] The language would apply to 12 different sections in the Code of Federal Regulations. MSGA is also engaging with the Interpretative Rule that accompanied this proposed rule (see side bar).

One thing is certain as MSGA engages in a preliminary analysis; this proposed rule does not achieve the EPA and Corps’ goals of clarity and simplicity. There are many ambiguous words and phrases that could be interpreted in any of a number of ways. Our main areas of concern are on the definition of tributary which would include ditches. There are a couple of exemptions as it relates to ditches, but we are unsure how applicable those will be in Montana. Important words in the proposal are not defined, such as “upland,” “significant” in significant nexus, “other waters,” and “through another water.” The role of groundwater is also a murky area. While the EPA claims this rule does not regulate groundwater (and the CWA itself specifically says it does not) the new rule proposal includes language about “shallow subsurface hydrologic connection” between two bodies of water. That phrase is not defined and leaves confusion about the role of groundwater, whether it is regulated under this proposal, or if it can be used to establish a connection between two bodies of water with no surface connection for the sake of regulation.

Our biggest question at this point is what are we doing so poorly in the state of Montana that the EPA feels they need to obtain more jurisdiction over our waters? We have strong laws and regulations in the Montana and ranchers work hard to protect the land and the water that is so vital to their everyday operations. Our constitution recognizes and confirms existing rights to any waters for any useful or beneficial purpose and states that “all surface, underground, flood, and atmospheric waters within the boundaries of the state are the property of the state for the use of its people and are subject to appropriation for beneficial uses as provided by law.” (Article IX, Section 3(3)).

MSGA will continue to grapple with these questions as we analyze this proposed rule and its potential impacts on ranching in Montana. Earlier this month, MSGA staff attended the Montana Legislature’s Water Policy Interim Committee in Helena where this rule was discussed. Staff also had an excellent conversation with Senator Jon Tester’s staff about the proposed rule and our concerns.

To read the full proposal and other documents (including the EPA’s scientific and economic analyses); visit the EPA’s website at www2.epa.gov/uswaters.  If you have any questions or comments about the proposal, especially comments about how this proposal might affect you personally, please call Ariel at (406) 930-1317 or send an email to arieloverstreet@gmail.com.